The government has an obligation to preserve such things as utilities to make sure we have control of these industries, which supply our basic needs. Unfortunately over the years we have sold off a number of these and we are now no longer in control of a number of them. If Corbyn and his Marxist, Leninist, Feminist, sidekick McConnell ever get in, then the story will be academic really. No defence spending, massive disbanding of the armed forces and withdrawal from NATO. The present government should do what they did in the 30s, drip feed the aircraft industry orders to keep them afloat. Or better still ( and I never thought I would ever say this) nationlise them to preserve our capability.

Bands - probably not needed.
Household Division - needs a trimming.
Display teams of other natures cut.
More jointery - there does not need to be 3 separate admin chains that do effectively the same job.

So don't be a bit of a patronising pillo*k if you can help it. And there is plenty, plenty of fat on the RAF that could be liposucked - and I am not talking about SO1 waistlines.

Why must they fly "Jets"....as they fly training airplanes....would not Turbo Props be cheaper?

Or...move up to Typhoons or F-35's and fly frontline FJ's?

Would be interested to see where all this bloating is these days. That so many roles and jobs have been contractorised rather than cut suggests those requirements still exist, but the MOD wants to do it on the cheap. So I assume we are talking cutting entire capabilities here?

The beauty of flying the Hawk, is of course, that all RAF FJ pilots will have flown it in the training system. Easier and cheaper to convert back to from a frontline squadron, than have to convert to something you've never flown before?


The only way to 'move up' and fly a frontline FJ would be to bring back the old squadron display teams? So if someone at the MOD is watching, please feel free to reform the Tremblers and stand them up as one of the new Typhoon AD squadrons.


The 'Black-tailed arrows' anyone?


We will have a few spare Tucanos going soon. Another option?

@SASless with the politics in mind, which UK-designed and manufactured turboprop did you have in mind?

It might have been arguable with Shorts(Bombardier..) production of Tucano on-going, but now we are closer to the argument of where exactly UK manufacturing capability for military aircraft is going to be in only a few years. With the end of production of both Hawk and Typhoon looming, Taranis(or a production standard progeny) seemingly nowhere, and no other UK procurement other than F35 apparently on the horizon, is it now time for some home stimulus to support a strategic national capability?

If not, how comfortable are we that the UK will have a fast jet production capability by the time we decide we need a new fast jet, of otherwise that further foreign purchases of Hawk will be forthcoming if we don't eek out the production run a few years?

This is a separate argument to whether BAE Systems need as much capacity as they have, spread across so many sites.

Except that no training is now carried out on TMk1, 4FTS using only the TMk2- unless you're advocating a purchase of more new Red Hawks?

How many sites?

BAES air-sector currently has two manufacturing sites (Brough and Samlesbury) and one final assembly and flight-test centre (Warton). Last week's announcement essentially removes Brough as a manufacturing site. You could collapse Samlesbury back to Warton, but it would be expensive and wouldn't achieve much.

If one site is excess capacity how much did you have in mind?

PDR

It's a good sentiment, and if the system worked that way then I may be tempted to agree with you, but sadly I don't think it does.

Take budgets, at the top level you might typically have 3 "pots", Operational Expenditure (OPEX), Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and some form of Restructure or other one-off funding (maybe UOR's are a good example?).
Each of those budgetary pots can be sub-divided further, e.g. Facilities, Engineering, Flying Ops, Projects, Procurement, etc. Then remember that many of those budget line items are subject to long term contracts with defence contractors or other civilian companies.

So often (almost always I'd say) there is little or no linkage between the 3 budget sources, so just cos you save money from one pot in a particular year doesnt necessarily mean there's additional funding either for that pot or any others.

Most often a cut is simply that, with the £1, £1M or £1Bn saved most likely being lost to those that need it most (in your example station facilities) and, at best, ending up being used to fill a gaping hole in Defence funding, e.g. related to Trident replacement or Carrier costs or some other monolithic job creation scheme that was under costed and has been poorly managed.

Simplistically, what I'm saying, is that I doubt any money saved from disbanding or not procuring new jets for the REDS would find its way to anything remotely useful.

With current state of the UK Design/Build capability....and the fact you already operate a couple of Non-UK Types.....130's, C-17's, F-35's, Chinooks, Apaches, being a few examples....why the need for a UK built aircraft at all?

I was led to believe that there was at least 10 more years worth of 'life' in the current T1 fleet?

I don't see how all of the 3 current sites can be supported indefinitely. Whether or not there is any real consideration of new RAFAT aircraft, there is going to be another campaign to save Brough. If I advocate anything at all, it's an effort to consider national strategic capabilities, not the propping up a number of manufacturing sites for local, rather than national priorities.

T1 OSD is 2030, but current users are 100 Sqn, RAFAT, 736NAS, Boscombe (RAFCAM). Training on T1 stopped when 208 stood down last year, so any 'new' aircrew sent to one of those squadrons will operate a T1 for the first time on their new unit.

And there is the strategic question: do we need the capability; do we have the will to push for it; can we be guaranteed of getting what we want/need operationally in future without a domestic capability?

Would the UK be a tier one F-35 partner without the extant capabilities of UK industry, the BAE Systems Replica, research on automated control of V/STOL ac.?

My answer is that we should be very, very wary of letting go of the capability to build military aircraft. How strong the political will is to support the capability we may find out in the next few years. The UK now has a strong reliance on service industries, and has watched heavier industry dwindle for a very long time. Even without considering military operations, over reliance on any one sector comes with some national risks. I would like to think that the banking crisis opened some eyes, and that national priorities would look favourably upon the aerospace sector.

Military operations make a parallel argument, and amplify the politics of dependence on friends and exports etc.

If the expertise of fast jet production is at risk, though could be retained by a domestic push to replace RAFAT aircraft a few years early, that sounds like a reasonable plan to me-but that places us back into the standard SDSR continuance of RAFAT question.

I agree that the system does not work that way. There is no way of ensuring that any money saved from one department can be utilised by another but the Reds do cost money to operate and that money does come from the overall defence budget.

I think that an argument could be made for keeping the Reds going for as long as they can keep the T1's going but I don't think there can be any justification for purchasing new aircraft just for the display team.

Perhaps a couple of Typhoon squadrons could have a handful of qualified display pilots and maybe 4 or 5 aircraft with special tail art (which could be quickly covered up in theatre) to cover flying display duties. I think that in these difficult financial times, a dedicated display team with new aircraft is a luxury we can't afford.

A very valid argument but one does have to factor in the issue of "scale"....can you support that kind of capability with such very few numbers of aircraft to be built?

The Unit cost would tremendous due to the lack of numbers built....unless you came up with Foreign Sales to underwrite the RAF/RN acquisitions.

With the competition from the France, Russia, the USA, China, and India....could you compete successfully?

Fair point-however, you need to have 1500hrs and have completed a front line tour before you can be selected for the Reds?


That means that for 5 or 6 years at least that won't matter? All the guys and gals eligible will have flown the T1?

Always find it helpful to be patronising when confronted with those who are single minded and think anything military is spelt A-R-M-Y. ;):E

Nor does there need to be all those different regiments, with all their different uniforms, badges, insignia, job titles (and spelling - Lance Corporal of the Horse, Serjeant....FFS) not forgetting their different chains of command, that do effectively the same job.:ugh:

Given ten years to effective out of service date and the dangerous world we live in, which makes supply chain integrity vital to war fighting. I.e. you can’t build replacements aircraft without importing parts from half the known world. Does it not make sense, Business, militarily etc for bae to start planning for son of hawk or are we just going to get Boeing TX?